|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:53 am Post subject: Iraq, a good idea? For Iraqis? |
 |
|
1993 - 24,000,000 Iraqis
2007 - 2,000,000 refugees
1,500,000 displaced
500,000 lost to decreased birth rate, infant mortality, killed.
Zbigniew on Real Time.
The question NOW has to be asked, as opposed to 4 years ago: Are they better off?
My take: Saddam was scum. Evil. BUT, are THEY better off? Would 4 years more of Saddam have had worse consequences?
Hard to imagine it would have. If there is an indictment of the Iraq bludgeoning, is there any more eloquent? Look at those numbers again.
1993 - 24,000,000 Iraqis
2007 - 2,000,000 refugees
1,500,000 displaced
500,000 lost to decreased birth rate, infant mortality, killed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What would Saddam do if he got free? Since that was inevitable you ought to answer that one . Besides much of the violence would stop if Kurds and the Shia's (80% of the population) just agree to be ruled by those from the Sunni triangle. Ought they do so.
You can't blame the US for what thsoe from the Sunni triangle do or for what crimes Al Qaeda carries out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:59 am Post subject: Re: Iraq, a good idea? For Iraqis? |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
My take: Saddam was scum. Evil. |
Scum, evil.....but ingenious....having withstood the Gulf war, a decade of sanctions and armed threats from the world�s most powerful countries. He also manipulated the flaw in the UN system - the structure and limits of the Security Council and the desire of its members for oil. There are five permanent members of the UN Security Council - Britain, US, China, Russia and France, each carrying the power to veto a resolution put forth by any of the others.
Why France? Why not Germany, Japan, India, Italy? The reasons just historical (apart from China, all were on the winning side in WWII). While ten of the 15 Security Council members rotate, those five remain. Like a good businessman, Saddam realized his opportunity. He spent years agreeing lucrative oil deals with Russia and France - giving them a vested interest in his regime�s survival (you'll recall the Ruskies and the Frogs pushing for more time for WMD ispectors in the run-up to the war). Saddam also knew that his enemy, the Americans, had been constrained by the UN by signing up to the project and its respect for international law. Were it not for 9/11, which Saddam had no role in, and Bush, who said he would attack any country he considers a threat, with or without the UN�s consent, Saddam would still be alive, in power.
Also, like you appear to believe yourself, it's all well and good saying Saddam was evil scum, but actually how on earth did a grey old man, with a weak army and poor economy, not only survive in power for so long but also keep such a heterogenous, divided cauldron together with some successes, when the world's most powerful country can't even occupy its capital? The reason is genius. Saddam was born to govern and be feared. Give Saddam his fair credit. He ran Iraq better than Bush could have. I wouldn't back Bush to run a bath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
